My cousin is gay and has been with his partner 15 years. I don't get why not. It don't affect my marriage.
2006-09-03 10:26:16 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There is no valid reason that it shouldn't be allowed.
I have heard all kinds of arguments against it. I am going to take the time to go over each of them.
1. Why now?
-Because it is called progression just as our society progressed and decided that blacks had a soul and were considered human beings with the same civil rights. Also, there are finally hate crimes laws protecting gay ppl in their protest; whereas, these protections did not exist before.
2. This country was based on Christian values.
-Sure it was but once again those Christian values had errors just like in #1 that we, as a society, have corrected. Those corrections are based on unconstitutionally hindering a minority's civil rights.
3. Our forefathers meant for our laws to follow the church and the 1st admendment doesn't really say separation of church and state.
- I love this one because I love it when a person tries to tell me what the forefathers were thinking. Here is a quote by Thomas Jefferson on this issue, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Pay close attention to that last line..."thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/churchstate.html
So there is it. That is what the forefathers WERE THINKING = separation of church and state.
4. Why do gays want special rights?
- This one is laughable. It is the heterosexuals that have the speical rights because they are straight. We want equal rights. We want the same inheritance rights, next of kin rights, health benefits rights, foreign spouse citizenship rights, tax dependent rights, etc....
We will gladly withdraw our argument/protest if heterosexual ppl will give up their special rights. They can still have their sacred marriages in their churches but just not be given special rights by the state that other tax-paying citizens are not allowed to have.
5. The majority is against gay marriage.
- First of all that statistic is incorrect. It is currently about 50/50. But even it were, that is completely invalid. We do not have a dictatorship where majority rules. Our country was designed to protect minority groups from mass control. If this were not the case, slavery would still exist and schools would still be separated, as well as, women not being allowed to vote.
6. It is not natural.
- How many of these ppl with this argument have performed oral sex? I'd be willing to bet the majority. Absurd argument and being gay is not about sex. It is about a the relationship and bond between two adults of the same sex.
7. Gay ppl will raise gay children.
- absurd. It has been proven that gay parents tend to raise more emotional children that tend to be more open-minded and secure with their own sexuality.
8. It will influence my children to be gay.
- Once again absurd. It is up to each parent to teach their values to their children. To teach their children what is right or wrong from what they believe. There are plenty of what we consider 'negative' influences in society that it is the parent's responsibility to discuss with their child. You can not hinder a tax-paying citizen's civil rights just because you don't want to take responsiblity for teaching your children your beliefs.
2006-09-03 10:36:17 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What if by some weird chance there was a God. Would that make a difference.
So this God made some rules of engagement for people to follow. You might want to find out how gay marriage affects you.
Historically speaking there have been some pro-gay cultures that suffered as a result of their activities.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-03 10:36:38 · answer #2 · answered by 43 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gays have become scapegoats. They're an easy target because they're misunderstood, and people fear and hate what they don't understand. Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a wealthy man to enter Heaven", but you'll never see Republicans criticizing the rich on that basis because that's contrary to their agenda. It's selective discrimination for political reasons. When they speak out against gays, their supporters applaud them for taking a stand against "immorality". This has the dual benefits of making them look like "good Christians" (meaning more votes), and diverting attention away from their own immorality. In other words, it's not really about morality at all, just business as usual for the politicians.
2006-09-03 11:15:50 · answer #3 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's just a diversion to keep people from asking questions about a ridiculous war without end, the biggest deficit in history and a huge illegal immigration problem. Social problems like gay marriage, flag burning and saying Happy Holidays are their way of avoiding a discussion of real issues.
2006-09-03 10:34:10 · answer #4 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I used to believe in 'Live and Let Live'. I was like as long as its not bothering me, do whatever.
BUT, I heard a very good argument that turned me against gay marriage forever. Okay, say we let men marry men and women marry women, because its a free country right? All too soon people would start marrying their dogs and cats, some dumbbutt would want to marry an inatimate object, marry thier car. Marriage has then become a joke, not to be taken seriously.
I believe that the word 'Marriage' should have the definition of man/woman, because you can't deny that is the 'norm'. If gay people want something modeled after Christian marriage (yes I know some gays ARE Christian) then let them have their own word to define it by, call it a 'union' or a 'lifetime promise'.
2006-09-03 10:38:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't have any particular insights. However, there is a wonderful journalist, Leonard Pitts Jr., a columnist for the Miami Herald. (He won the Pultizer Prize in 2004.) He had a column on this very subject on Aug. 28 and another one a few months back. Basically his thesis is that those who point to the Bible as their justification for banning gay marriage only use selective Bibical passages to condemn human practices they don't like. They never quote the Bibical passages that don't fit their argument. He calls it Bibical literalism.
I just added this point, because I believe you're going to get a whole bunch of people who say the Bible outlaws it. As he points out in the Aug. 28th column, swearing against your parents is also a capital offense, but of course we don't put people to death for swearing at their parents. The column is titled, "Literalism blocks Bible's big picture."
2006-09-03 10:36:07 · answer #6 · answered by Shelley 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a religious thing. God says it is a sin. God does not hate the sinners, He loves us all, even homosexuals, but He detests the sin. Christians feel the same way and by supporting gay marriage, one is supporting sin. That's as I understand the situation. Oh yes, by supporting homosexual conduct, one would be contributing to the moral decline of the nation.
2006-09-03 10:39:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only coherent reasons are all purely religious based. However purely religious reasons are not valid grounds to enact secular laws relating to legal statuses.
I wrote a fairly long essay (link below) analyzing every reason for and against same-sex marriage.
What most people forget, however, is that there are no laws prohibiting gay marriage in the US. None.
A gay may can marry a lesbian woman in any state, as long as they are of age and not related by blood. So, the prohibitions against same-sex marriage have nothing to do with sexual orientation. They are pure gender-based discrimination, since they limit only based on gender and not on sexual orientation.
{EDIT to Paladin and Neptune and Sunshine} That "slippery slope" argument is one of the stupidest in the irrational arsenal.
All current marriage laws in the US are designed around two humans. Two. Humans. All current laws. And yet none of them make distinctions based on gender. Husbands get the same benefits as wives and vice versa. So, right now, under all laws relating to the benefits and requirements of being married, the only place gender makes any difference is in who can get married.
Allowing marriage between two people of the same gender changes absolutely nothing, except some paperwork forms. Because all of the laws already apply to two humans independent of gender. Two. Humans. All current laws. However, changing the laws to apply to other than two humans would require massive rewrites. So, there is no slippery slope because there is no slope at all.
2006-09-03 10:32:45 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Are their any good reasons for gay marriage.
Homosexuals are an abomination. Outcasts against nature.
We only need to look at our reproductivness to see that gay is wrong.
To allow marriage is to give acceptance. Believe it or not this loud outcry for gay marriage is still from a low percentage of americans.
Gays do not need criticism. They need love and patience.
They do not need legitimacy for their actions.
2006-09-03 10:42:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you in a 4-way marriage?
2006-09-03 10:31:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋